92 Chapter 4
and the ‘unfit’ withthe lowerthat had beencharacteristicof the oldersocialDarwinism.”
Theserich peoplehappento be Hofstadter’s caricatureof suchlaissez-fairesocialDarwin-
ists as Spencerand Sumner.“Theiralmostexclusivefocusuponthe physicaland medical
aspectsof humanlife helpedto distractpublicattentionfromthe broadproblemsof social
welfare.... The socialpreconceptionsof Sir FrancisGaltonwerenot seriouslyquestioned
by the earlyeugenicists;and Galton,like... Sumner,... had postulatedthe free competi-
tive orderin whichawardsare distributedaccordingto ability.He wasconvinced‘that
menwhoachieveeminence,andthosewhoare naturallycapable,are, to a largeextent,
identical.’”^98 SDAT’s insinuationsaside,Sir Francis’s politicalphilosophywasthe oppo-
site of the one thatSpencerandSumnerpopularized.JournalistKennethSilberreveals
that Sir Francis“thought” that it wouldbe wonderful“if the stateplayeda centralrole in
eugenics.. .” He “envisionedthe hereditarilywell-endowedreceivingofficial[tax-paid]
subsidiesto reproduce.. .”^99 ThosewhowouldmistakeGalton’s programfor something
basedon Spencer’s teachingsforgeta salientfact.I cite Spencer’s moralobjectionto the
practiceof taxpayersubsidiesgoingto any enterprise.Spencer,as I do, propoundedthat
governmentoperationsshouldbe fundedthroughcontractualuser-feesinsteadof com-
pulsorytaxation.Fortunately,historianDanielKevlesacknowledgesthat the government
eugenicsmovement’s leaderswere—as withJusticeHolmes,Pearson,and Ward—openly
antagonistictowardfree enterprise.
Incidentally,thereis unintendedhumorin that,in its furthereffortto depictWardas
the archenemyof socialDarwinism,SDATfocusesthe reader’s attentionon Ward’s public
criticismof FrancisGalton.We are to interpretthis as Wardpubliclycriticizinggovernist
eugenics.In actuality,ThomasLeonardinformsus, whenWardcriticizedGalton,it was
not on accountof the brutalityof eugenicspolicynaggingat Ward’s conscience.Nay,
Ward’s quibblewasovera technicalissue.Sir Francis’s versionof governisteugenics
madeheavyuse of GregorMendel’s discoveriesaboutgeneticgenotypes,phenotypes,
dominantgenes,andrecessivegenes.Wardrejectedthe much-more-scientifically-accu-
rateMendeliangeneticsin favorof the older,less-accurateinterpretationof evolution
advancedby Jean-BaptisteLamarck.AndWardexpectedGaltonto comeoverto his side,
awayfromMendeland towardLamarck.This,ThomasC. Leonardsighs,is “a distinction
thatHofstadterelides.”^100 Upondecidingwhosepoliticalphilosophywassimilarto his
own,it was Wardto whomSir Francisleanedtoward.
Despitehis misrepresentationsof Spencer,whichwe readaboutin chapter2, science
journalistColinTudgecomesforwardas yet anotherintellectualwillingto concedethat
the governist’s eugenicsmovementwaspeopledby membersof the politicalLeft.Tudge,
too,contradictsHofstadter’s presumptionthatgovernisteugenicswaslargelya right-
wingphenomenon.Recallthatafternotingthateugenicists“differed” fromfree-market
advocatesin failingto “drawsweepinglaissez-faireconclusions,”AmericanThoughtstill
insiststhatbothcamps—the governisteugenicistsand the Manchesteriteevolutionists—
werestill “almostequallyconservativein theirgeneralbias.. .” RecallalsoHofstadter’s
insistencethat governisteugenicswas ultimately“fundamentalconservatism.”^101 In what
seemsan indirectindictmentof Hofstadter,EdwinBlack,and theiracademicfollowersfor
suchmisrepresentations,Tudgewrites,“It has beencustomary,in the late decadesof the
twentiethcentury,to decrythe eugenicsmovement” as nothingmorethana “right-wing
plot:an attemptby the rulingclassto beatthe lowerordersinto shape... But historydoes
not bearthis out.” A numberof celebritiesthoughtto “belongto the left,” Tudgecontin-
ues,“wrotechillinglyandfrankly” abouttheirgovernmentaleugenicaims.^102 TheUni-
versityof Houston’s JamesH. Jones(b. 1943),too, reportsthatgovernisteugenics“com-
manded wide support among [left-wing welfare-statist] liberals and conservatives
alike.”^103 Bannisterknowsthat“eugenicshada rightanda left wing.. .” Andhe adds